|
Excerpt from WWN XIII - 11(80)
“Watchman,
what of the
night?”
"The hour has come, the
hour is striking and striking at you,
THE HERESY OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST EVANGELICAL CONFERENCES
When the book - Questions on Doctrine - was
published in 1957 following the Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical
Conferences of 1955-1956, the Editorial Committee stated in the
"Introduction:"
No statement of Seventh-day Adventist belief can be considered official
unless it is adopted by the General Conference in quadenial session,
when accredited delegates from the whole world field are present. The
statement of Fundamental Beliefs [1931 as amended at the 1950 Session]
as mentioned above is our only official statement. The answers in this
volume are an expansion of doctrinal positions contained in that
official statement of Fundamental Beliefs. (p. 9)
A number, including the late Elder M. L. Andreasen, Elder David Bauer,
and this writer, did not consider the book - Questions on Doctrine
- an expansion of the 1931 Statement of Beliefs, but rather a departure
from the faith once committed to the Church. The response on the part of
some of the hierarchy was that since this book was not an official
statement, and could not be until voted by the General Conference in
session there was no reason to become unduly concerned. However, others
attempted to defend the positions taken in the book. One striking
example of this defense by affirmation came from the Editor of the
Adventist
Review. He wrote to one of the laity of the Church:
This
book Questions on Doctrine]
in no way changes our fundamental beliefs. In fact, it probably sets
them forth more clearly than any publication that has been issued from
our presses in many a year. I have been next to this whole program from
the very beginning, [Unruh evidently was not aware of this as Wood's
name does not appear in the Adventist
Heritage
Report.] and I have yet to hear any serious reader of this book offer a
criticism that can bear examination. [The Editor appears not to have
heard of Andreasen's Letters to the
Churches.]
(Letter dated, February 28, 1968) Regardless of how the hierarchy seeks to justify the conferences that took place between Barnhouse and Martin for the Evangelicals; and Unruh, Froom, Anderson, and Read for the Church, apostasy of the darkest hue was perpetrated by these men who sought to speak for the Church. And this apostasy was approved by the leadership of the Church. One needs read only Unruh's report in the Adventist Heritage (Vol. 4, #2, pp. 35-46) for this verification.
At the very beginning of the conferences, Barnhouse stated that he and
Martin "immediately. . . perceived that the Adventists were strenuously
denying certain doctrinal positions which had been previously attributed
to them." (Eternity, Sept., 1956) In the same article, he further
commented:
The position of the Adventists seems to some of us in certain cases to
be a new position; to them it may be merely the position of the majority
group of sane leadership which is determined to put the brakes on any
members who seek to hold views divergent from that of the responsible
leadership of the denomination.
What was one of these "certain cases" which they perceived as a "new
position? Barnhouse has stated it thus:
The final major area of disagreement is over the doctrine of the
"investigative judgment," which is a doctrine never known in
theological history until the second half of the nineteenth century and
which is a doctrine held exclusively by the Seventh-day Adventists. At
the very beginning of our contacts with the Adventist leaders, Mr.
Martin and I thought that this would be the doctrine on which it would
be impossible to come to any understanding which would permit our
including them among those who could be counted as Christians believing
in the finished work of Christ. (ibid.)
Now what did these Evangelicals hear the Adventist conferees state
regarding this basic Adventist teaching? Mr. Barnhouse has written
devastatingly:
Mr. Martin and I heard the Adventist leaders say, flatly, that they
repudiate all such extremes [The literalism of the heavenly sanctuary].
This they did in no uncertain terms. Further, they do not believe, as
some of their earlier teachers taught, that Jesus' atoning work was not
completed on Calvary but instead that He was still carrying on a second
ministering work since 1844. This idea is also totally repudiated.
They believe that since His ascension
Christ has been ministering the benefits of the atonement which
He completed on Calvary.
(ibid.)
Further, Unruh confirms that this is what the Adventist conferees
actually told Barnhouse and Martin. He wrote:
We affirmed our belief in the eternal and complete deity of Christ, in
His sinless life in the incarnation, in his atoning death on the cross,
once for all and all-sufficient, in His literal resurrection, and in His
priestly ministry before the Father, applying the benefits
of the atonement completed on the cross. (Adventist Heritage, op.
cit., p. 38) Observe now, how this new doctrine was expressed in the book - Questions on Doctrine - when it was published. It is stated:
When, therefore, one
hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature - even in the
writings of Ellen G. White - that Christ is making atonement now, it
should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making
application of the benefits of the
sacrificial atonement He made on the cross; that He is making
it efficacious for us individually, according to our needs and
requests. (pp. 354-355
emphasis theirs)
To underscore that nothing was to be obtained for the believer by the
ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, in this book it is further
stated:
How glorious is the thought that the King, who occupies the throne, is
also our representative at the court of heaven! This becomes all the
more meaningful when we realize that Jesus our surety entered the "holy
places," and appeared in the presence of God for us. But it was not with
the hope of obtaining something for us at that time, or at some
future time. No! He had already obtained it for us on
the cross. (p. 381 emphasis theirs.)
With this background, take your previous thought paper [#WWN
(XIII-10#)] and turn to page 10. There at the top of the page begins the
statement from the Annual Council of 1979 recommended statement of
beliefs, followed by the statement given to the delegates at the Dallas
Session, and the third paragraph gives the statement as voted in regard
to Christ's High Priestly Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary. Observe
closely the following sentences from these statements:
That there is in heaven a sanctuary in which Christ ministers in our
behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning
sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. (1979
Recommended)
As High Priest of the heavenly sanctuary He draws all to Himself and
makes available to those who receive Him the benefits of His
atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. (1980
Presented)
In it [a sanctuary in heaven], Christ ministers on our behalf, making
available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice
offered once for all on the cross. (1980 Voted)
By checking closely
all previous statements of belief, even the 1931 Statement as voted by
the 1950 General Conference in Session, in the areas of "The Atonement"
and "Christ's High Priestly Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary," no
where can one find the phraseology as noted above. Keep in mind that the
Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences came after the 1950
General Conference Session in 1955-1956. Observe closely the wording of
the previous statements of belief in the area of the atonement: [WWN
(XIII-10), p. 7]
Jesus Christ "died our sacrifice, was raised for our
justification, ascended on high to be our only Mediator in the sanctuary
in heaven, where, with His blood, He makes the atonement for our
sins; which atonement, so far from being made on the cross, which
was but the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of His
work as
Jesus Christ "died our sacrifice, was raised for our
justification, ascended on high to be our only Mediator in the sanctuary
in heaven, where, through the merits of His shed blood, He secures
the pardon and forgiveness
of the sins of all those who penitently come to Him." (YB 1889,
1905, 1907-1914)
Jesus Christ "died our
sacrifice, was raised for our justification, ascended on high to be
our only Mediator in the sanctuary in heaven, where, through the
atoning merits of His blood, He secures the pardon
and forgiveness of all who penitently come to God through Him."
(1894, Battle Creek Church Directory)
In all of these
statements of
belief from 1872 through 1914, it is
plainly stated that Jesus Christ as High Priest made the atonement in
heaven - not on the Cross which was but the Sacrifice - and that in that
heavenly sanctuary atonement, He did obtain something for us - the
forgiveness and pardon of our sins as we come penitently to God through
Him.
The Yearbooks (1889, 1905, 1907-1914) are likewise very explicit
in regard to the priestly ministry of Christ in the final atonement.
They read:
That the sanctuary of the
new covenant is the tabernacle of God in heaven. . . [and] is the
sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the two thousand and three
hundred says, what is termed its cleansing being in this case, as in
the type, simply the entrance of the high
priest into the most holy place, to finish the round of
service connected therewith, by making the atonement and
removing from the sanctuary the sins which had been transferred to it
by means of the ministration in the first apartment; and that
this work in the antitype, beginning in
1844, consists
in actually blotting out the sins of believers.
NUN (XII I-10), p. 911
If the types of the earthly sanctuary established by God Himself teach
us anything - they teach us that it was not the blood of the sacrifice
offered which obtained forgiveness, or cleansing, but the blood
of the sacrifice mediated which was efficacious in symbol to the
sinner. That which was done in type became a reality in the sacrifice
and mediation of Jesus Christ, who after having offered Himself as the
victim, ascended into the heavenly sanctuary as the high priest to make
the atonement for the believer.
In the 1955-1956 Conferences with the Evangelicals, we denied this basic
Biblical and Adventist truth, even going to the extent of putting in
writing - Questions on
Doctrine (pp. 354-355) - that when our spiritual fathers including
Ellen G. White, spoke, wrote, or taught this fundamental concept they
did not mean it, but rather "that Christ is now making application of
the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made on the cross." This
denial of our historic faith we have now confirmed in the Statement of
Belief voted at the General Conference Session in Dallas, Texas. The
apostasy of the 50's has become the stated faith of the 80's!
We were warned in
regard to the Alpha apostasy at the turn of the century that -
The track of truth lies close beside the track of error, and both tracks
may seem to be one to minds which are not worked by the Holy
What was true concerning the Alpha Apostasy is equally, if not more so,
true concerning the Omega Apostasy. While the delegates to the 1980
Session sought to avoid the use of the words - "completed atonement" -
in referring to the sacrifice on the Cross, and deleted from the Statement
given to them at the beginning of the session, the phrase - "This act of
atonement" [WWN (XIII-10), p. 8] - they still accepted phraseology in
another section which means the same thing as that which was deleted in
a previous section. The cross is noted as "this perfect atonement" with
its benefits merely made "available to the believers" through Christ's
heavenly ministry. Thus is confirmed as declared in Questions on
Doctrine, that Christ returned to heaven "not with the hope of
obtaining something for us," for "He had already obtained it for us on
the cross." Yet there are those who believe that a great victory was
obtained in Dallas, Texas, simply because some not so subtle heresies
were deleted from the recommended Statement issued at the 1979 Annual
Council. But instead of restoring the historic faith which had been
committed to our trust, the guardians of the spiritual interests of the
people, led by the president of the General Conference himself voted to
confirm the sell-out perpetrated in the Seventh-day Adventist
Evangelical Conferences of 19551956. How deceived can we become!
To top this deception, many are now rejoicing in what was voted in
regard to Dr. Desmond Ford, thinking that this has now purified our
faith, when in reality we confirmed at Dallas some of the very doctrine
which Dr. Ford had merely carried to its ultimate conclusion. For if the
atonement of Christ was once for all on the Cross, then is not Dr. Ford
correct in maintaining that there is no heavenly significance to 1844?
Why condemn him for teaching what was voted as "the voice of God" in
Dallas. So long as anyone subscribes to the apostasy of Dallas, they are
as much a partaker in heresy as Dr. Ford is. They should join forces
with him. This includes the Editor of the Adventist Review who
believed in 1968 and to my knowledge I have not read a confession of
repentance, nor a retraction - that Questions on Doctrine sets
forth our fundamental beliefs "more clearly than any other publication
that has been issued from our presses in many a year." So he believes
with Ford that Christ obtains nothing for us in the sanctuary, for He
obtained it all on the Cross. It is true that one can find from his pen
as Editor attacks on Ford's position - this only compounds the
deception. It is simply the blind leading the blind. May God help us to
awaken to actually what has taken place. The Omega of apostasy has come
to full fruition. What was begun in 1955-1956 has now been officially
adopted in 1980.
1
Documentary
Notations - In referring to the Key Doctrinal Comparisons from
Statements of Belief, 1872-1980 as given in the October thought paper,
we shall use the following - WWN (XIII-10). For example, should we be
referring to the comparison on the Spirit of Prophecy, and were quoting
from the sentences added at the 1950 General Conference Session to the
1931 Statement of Belief, we would note it as follows - [WWN (XIII-10),
p. 3, GC, 1950] The Yearbook references will be cited as Y8-1889,
etc. The most recent statements will be noted as 1979-Recommended;
1980-Presented; and 1980-Voted. |